2S35 Koalitsiya-SV 152mm

"For her, a pneumatic loading mechanism and microwave ignition system propellant. Formation of modular propellant charge is carried out automatically. For data entry in fuses shells also responsible Automatic "- the author notes.

The above is a quote from the article above with google translation.

After some thought however I suspect its true meaning is nothing exotic like binary composition... it is likely just a fully variable charge weapon... ie a Howitzer.

Meaning for shots at close range targets a much smaller propellent charge is loaded to greatly reduce the time of flight of the projectile to target... ie with a gun if you fire at a close range target with no line of sight you have to fire at a very high elevation so the projectile goes up very high and spends a long time going up and coming down... giving more time for the target to move or take cover and also for any wind at any altitude to move the projectile off target.

reduced propellent means the round gets to the target much faster with less time to move off target.

Modular projectiles doesn't really make sense... a projectile consists of a fuse, a body with a HE charge and either thin walls for blast HE rounds or heavy metal filled Frag bodies, plus either a base bleed gas system, or rocket stage for extended range rounds.

Having a modular round makes no sense as all rounds will have fuses and rear areas that could be filled with base bleed fuel or rocket fuel or just more HE for shorter range rounds.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

so much for the T-90 chassis... everyone says it cuz the 6 wheels, but...

just look the damn photo above! same hull shapes, exhaust, and the tracks too, all seems like armata, the rear sponson box, everything. The glacis is almost identical to the armata, as seen on other photos....

If this is a modified T-90, it's modified to the point it's not at all a T-90 anymore.

Someone said about it, but I can't remember where i read it (probably russian topic on MP)... and it seems more realistic.

Why the 6 road wheels? Cause it's better that way for some reasons? Oh, and please note the similar crew capsule on the front of the vehicle, with TC on the right! (right when you're inside it)

I don't buy it's a T-90 hull, there is no reason. It seems to be an armata variant and it uses T-90 wheels, and maybe have some other common parts.

Literally no one not even Vann7 makes so many discussions to personal debates without a single content else but calling someone a liar trying to ridiculing what someone said while pretending to be some authority like each word is the truth that pours out of his from wisdom glowing ass, while Vann7 brings content and sources to his claims, which TR1 does not do he usually comes with one liners.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would rather trust a statement made by GarryB or SOC or Mindstorm rather than statements made by RT, Sputnik, Fox, BBC etc.

That half baked intellectual that you are trying to defend is only as good or bad as TR1 when it comes to personal attacks.

And plz Werewolf remind me how many times you have called us Americunts?

Stealthflanker wrote:So basically that command guided artillery shell is hmm a simpler and cheaper version that American analogue (Not excalibur but similar fuze..where US put GPS inside it, it use canard fin to correct trajectory. That smart "fuze" can be plugged in into standard 155mm shell)

Nonetheless i'd love to hear/read more about the EMP shell. In my view it could be game changing I speculate the shell is using Explosive pumped flux compression generator, which power RF source like Super Reltron tube. It would be powered by hmm i wonder a battery or capacitor. The antenna could be a cheap horn for other design.

Russians did quite thorough research on pulsed power topics for such application. As far as i heard state of the art Russian pulsed power technology can produce over gigawatts or terawatts of power in very short pulse. Even i heard EMP RPG round.

Huh...Russia have laser guided artillery Shell..Krasnopol -M ,capable of hitting moving tanks at speeds up to 36 km/h (22 mph) no one in NATO have anything close to that..in service, the new Gun in COalition should expand it range to near 48km or better. with.. direct hits accuracy. GPS artillery cannot be used to hit anything in motion and good luck trying to hit anything with a GPS jamming environment.. a problem that laser guided artillery do not have.. US-NATO forces are made to combat modern third world nations but not Russian army.

Im interested to know about Russia rocket artillery too .. according to Russian designers they have expanded their rocket artillery to 200km.. thats really a major gaming changing..in any modern war.. Coalition should be hitting beyond 50km range with a bigger cannon. will be nice to see a 185mm version.

Any doubt regarding new/old chassis for 2S35 can be set aside from these pictures. Commander at the front. The hull is different which we can see from the front section.

Actually I think the photos you post prove the Coalition has a modified T-90 chassis... the size and angle of the front glasis plate are the same for the 2S35 and the T-90, while the Armata MBT seems rather larger with different front hull angles...

The question is... is this hull standard or temporary?

I suspect for integration into an Armata unit it would benefit from armata components/engines/systems.

185? why, this caliber does not exist

Laser guided shells were developed for all the large standard calibres including 160mm and 240mm (mortar), and 130mm (coastal gun) 180mm towed gun, and 203mm guns.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Any doubt regarding new/old chassis for 2S35 can be set aside from these pictures. Commander at the front. The hull is different which we can see from the front section.

Actually I think the photos you post prove the Coalition has a modified T-90 chassis... the size and angle of the front glasis plate are the same for the 2S35 and the T-90, while the Armata MBT seems rather larger with different front hull angles...

The question is... is this hull standard or temporary?

I suspect for integration into an Armata unit it would benefit from armata components/engines/systems.

185? why, this caliber does not exist

Laser guided shells were developed for all the large standard calibres including 160mm and 240mm (mortar), and 130mm (coastal gun) 180mm towed gun, and 203mm guns.

Same here, I think the Coalition shown for the parade is just a transition. The facts hint at an "Armata" platform for every role with turrets and APS & optronics being the modular part.

The facts hint at an "Armata" platform for every role with turrets and APS & optronics being the modular part.

Yay!!!

You would not believe the number of people who think Armata is the MBT and Kurganets is the BMP/IFV and the Boomerang is the BTR and Typhoon is the BRDM.

The idea is reducing the logistics tail to a minimum to make the whole unit as mobile as possible, so instead of having a unit with T-90 tanks and BMP-3 and BMP-2 IFVs and BTR-82 APCs and of course MT-LB APCs and ACRV (MT-LB based) command vehicles and various self propelled artillery (MSTA - T-80 based but with T-72 engine), SAM and Gun/SAM vehicles, Rocket artillery, not to mention light UAV jeeps and a dozen other vehicles, the new units will be Armata based or Kurganets based or boomerang based or typhoon based.

I suspect for the lighter units the coalition vehicle will be truck based but a truck with the same engine and transmission and running gear as the boomerang/kurganets to maximise commonality.

there might be other aberrations but basically an armata unit will have armata chassis with different turrets and engine arrangements (ie front or back) and different rear hull load outs.

As an example the tracked armata coalition might have a modular rear hull ammo pack that can be loaded onto the rear hull with a front mounted engine and crew an ammo pack could be loaded into the rear that feeds ammo directly into the turret ammo system... once the turret is full the rear hull ammo cassette could be removed and either topped up and replaced or just replaced and topped up later to get the vehicle back into combat ready condition asap.

With guided shells the rate of fire requirement could be greatly reduced, but there will likely be rather more targets on the battlefield so fast reloads are useful anyway.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Any doubt regarding new/old chassis for 2S35 can be set aside from these pictures. Commander at the front. The hull is different which we can see from the front section.

Actually I think the photos you post prove the Coalition has a modified T-90 chassis... the size and angle of the front glasis plate are the same for the 2S35 and the T-90, while the Armata MBT seems rather larger with different front hull angles...

No sorry, it isn't. The angle of front glasis is completely different and it is rather bulged and have more volume due to the need to accommodate 3 crew members. Plz compare the pics closely and you might probably agree that it is different. I will try to put forth it through pics.

Front right side view. Compare the angle/edge of front hull. T-90 have these angle/edge at a low level where as T-14 & 2S35 have it higher up, which can also be sensed from the front drive sprocket that are (maybe/may be not) at a higher level than T-90.

Rear right side view. The rear hull resemble that of T-14 Armata with the two integrated/attached APU like twin boxes found on T-90SM and T-72 upgrades. The newer V-92S2F from T-90SM program is probably the engine installed in the hull and the reason for a single exhaust (other than it being a T-90 based hull). Even if its the new standard hull, its a probably a logical decision based on role, performance and cost for the platform.

The track footprint and hull is similar in length to the Armata and longer than that of 2S19 Msta. Checking the videos will make it clear. The 6-wheel arrangement of 2S35 with standard T-90 size wheels will give us an idea of how Armata would have looked like if they had retained with a 6-wheel setup.

Earlier pic during its testing which was posted in this very thread. Larger pic - http://i.imgur.com/vIfgxmA.jpg

The question is... is this hull standard or temporary?

I suspect for integration into an Armata unit it would benefit from armata components/engines/systems.

I think it could be the standard hull. Hope you will agree with my reasoning that I have given in this post. Like the 7-wheels of the Armata MBT which make many to believe the size/footprint of Armata to be in size range of Abrams...likewise, the side profile elements like the fenders and side skirt similar to the 2S19 Msta is whats making people to stick with the view that its just a modified T-90 chassis. Remove that 'old' 2S19 like side profile and put something new similar to Armata, the overall look and feel of this machine wil change. So will the opinion.

Lastly, its said to be a T-90 modified chassis...fine...but how much of a modification to the basic hull will help this hull retain its parentage as a T-90 hull? 6-wheels doesn't by default make it a T-90 hull.

I cant read or understand Russian so don't know what the Russian forum'ers know about it... I arrive at conclusion based on analyzing the pics and videos available and it tells me the hull is vastly different....and I'm rather inclined to believe that it is actually a 'modified' Armata hull because the so called T-90 hull has been so much modified for this 2S35 that it is now much closer to the Armata hull than a T-90 hull.